logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.17 2016고단4237
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court on March 30, 2012, and was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the same crime in the same court on December 24, 2008 and was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the same crime and sentenced to two times.

On September 3, 2016, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.070% of blood alcohol concentration 0.070% on September 23:3, 2016, and was driving a B TLXG motor vehicle from approximately 2 km to the 3rd 1st Dok-ro, Nam-gu, Nam-ro, Nam-ro, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver and report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a summary order;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is the number and time of punishment for the same kind of crime; the numerical value of blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the same case; the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of various factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case.

arrow